Should the United States Sign a Security Pact With Israel?

I agree with your biblical position on support of Israel. I'm not sure about the USA being great because of our support of Israel. But from my study on this topic- from the point of the bible we should pray for & support Israel. Remember they are not perfect in everything they do just as the US isn't perfect in what we do.

This can be debated a lot , but this is not something to cause division. NOt when people are dying and going to hell without a personal relationship with Christ.

 

There has been an Israel for only 60 years.
From the time America has supported Israel, America has been on a downward spiral, morally speaking.
Israel has always denied Jesus as the Christ no matter how much the Christians of America support it.
An anti Christ is one who denies that Jesus has come in the flesh.
To blindly support Israel for the sole purpose that they are Jews is supporting a people who deny Christ and if a Christian is to only marry another Christian than how can anyone say that Israel's denial of Christ is acceptable and worthy of support.
When God said to Abraham that I will bless those who bless thee, he was speaking of those who are of the seed of Abraham, which today are the Christians.
If America was great, it was because it was once a Christian Nation and has nothing to do with supporting Israel.
To blindly support Israel sounds more like Hagee doctrine that biblical.

 

Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so, whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose—and you allow him to make war at pleasure. Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect, after you have given him so much as you propose. If, to-day, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, “I see no probability of the British invading us” but he will say to you “be silent; I see it, if you dont.”

The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power to Congress, was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons. Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This, our Convention understood to be the most oppressive of all Kingly oppressions; and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood.


Do you know who wrote this? If not then click here.

Congres could pass legislation making the president king tomorrow and it still wouldn't be lawful

Did the author of this letter know that in the future one George W. Bush and his administration would be using the very method he described?

Sounds like he did doesn't it?

 

Well Ken, it seems as if the question is disconnected and you seem to be changing the question a bit. Your initial question was:

To that, I answer "No". I see no compelling interest to do so. I'm one of the few who will say out loud that I believe nowhere does the Bible teach that America will lose one shred of blessing if we fail to come to the aid of a nation that named itself Israel.

Now, if you are asking what you nowseem to be asking, namely, "If POTUS/Congress decides to make a treaty/pact, should they make a treaty/pact?" Well, yeah, go ahead. Do whatever you/they decided to do I guess. But I would not vote for such a pact if I was in Congress, nor would I promote such if I were POTUS, unless there was clear reason to believe that there were some special and particular interest of the USA that would be threatened by aggression against Israel.

You yourself said

which is why Poncho and I asked what we did. But I think I know why you said it. You believe it is the position of the US, so shouldn't they codify such. I take it you believe that, whether you agree or not, it's the will of this (and apparently, the next) Commander-in-Chief to defend Israel, so they should codify their intentions. But I wouldn't codify something I wouldn't agree to do, so that's why I answered the way I do.

There are two schools of thought on doing this. One school says doing such a pact would make the Muslim world hate us more. Sorry. The Muslim world would only hate us worse if we carpet bombed Mecca. Short of that, there's not a whole lot more that can be done to foster a centuries old hatred. Second school says make this pact but keep it quiet (or not make it official at all). But rhetoric is public. That toothpaste already left the tube.

By the way, you used the term "negotiate." What do you believe Israel could offer on their side that would warrant a negotiation?

 

I would also ask, what evidence is there that the modern state of Israel is in any way the same entity as the Biblical kingdom of Israel (other than the name)?

 

There is nothing wrong with aiding Israel or defending it if in our national interests. A pact is out of the question. God is quite in control of the middle east. How many American tax dollars have we already wasted funding Israel and her enemy neighbors, trying to change what God has ordained?

 

Such alliances escalated the world into global war in the past. Remember learning about The Triple Alliance and The Triple Entente?

CLICK HERE

 

A few things. First, just because a former President that is treated as a diety said something, that doesn't make it right. The Constitution at no time says that Congress must declare war or authorize the use of force. It simply says that they are the ones that are authorized to declare war. The same founders that wrote the Constitution allowed for the use of force without a Declaration of War in places across the globe. I doubt the Barbary Pirates invading the US was a real concern- but it did give the Marine Corps one of the opening lines of its hymn. (to the shores of Tripoli)

Next, the US did not begin supporting God's chosen people in 1948. Yes, it was impossible to support Israel as a nation before that time, but not to support the people. Rather than attempting to be cryptic, I'll just make this easy. John Adams, in a letter to F. A. Van der Kemp made his feelings about Jews quite clear:

With the second President of the US holding them in such high regard, I believe it is just a touch short sighted to assert that the US didn't support Israel until 1948. In fact, by 1819 he was advocating a Jewish state. If that isn't support for Israel prior to 1948 I don't know what would be.

 

Can you clearly show me that the Jews that govern Israel today are not those referred to in Rev;2-9 and Rev:3-9 ? I personally believe that the "jewish people"in control in Israel today just may be "KAZARIAN " . So no thanks.
BTW we should never have signed any treaty to begin with.

 

Ken, theology carries a great deal of weight in the decisions that I make ,in fact I try hard not to take any decision without looking at it through biblical glasses so ,sorry I can't make a secular determination...

 

Because foreign aid for just any reason used to be unconstitutional?